Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News

Drudge Retort

User Info


Subscribe to blah's blog Subscribe


Special Features


Just scrolling through the messages and I see this:
"It is only a matter of time before the tax the internet"
Assuming "the" was meant to be "they," I have one response...
You guys get internet without being taxed? Damn! Comcast is making me pay their taxes. Its right on my bill every month! I'm getting screwed.

Oh, and since Danni wasn't sure what I meant about deep packet inspection:
Its not new, its been in use for a while, but for peeps like AFK arguing to allow corps to segment the internet, this is the technology they use to make that possible.
It also allows them to inject, filter and replace what you see on the internet without you ever knowing anyone is censoring your connection. Yeah, and thats not so hypothetical either (both these examples happened in Canada):

But its cool, its just control of information, no big deal. We can totally trust companies to have our and our country's best interests set above profits.

Question for anti neutrality protesters. Would your stance also be that you are not allowed to use electricity the way you want once it is in your home?

How does net neutrality (real net neutrality, not what Glen Beck told you net neutrality was) help the internet?
1) This is the way the internet was built. A bit is a bit is a bit.
2) If I develop a new service or technology now, I can roll it out and only pay for my bandwidth, and become the next netflix. But without net neutrality, if I can't pay the Comcast bribe to get into their fast lane, and the Cox bribe to get on their fast lane, and the Verizon bribe to get on their fast lane, etc, etc, etc... I am stuck providing a sub par service, unable to compete with established markets that have the capital to pay the bribes and unable to gain customers.
3) This could never happen?
It has been happening, for years.
And since I know so many of you are so up and up with the peering deals. Netflix wasn't pushing content on Comcast, Netflix is a pull service, a Comcast customer must request the stream. Netflix was a draw for Comcast customers to pay for higher bandwidth, so Comcast got money out of their customers requesting so much bandwidth from Netflix. The Comcast customer is a part of Comcast's network, so Comcast's network was the requesting network. The termination point was within Comcast's network. That aint peering, but the court, technically savvy as they are, disagreed.
To put the net neutrality argument in the terms that maybe an oil rig worker or insurance agent would be familiar with: When I buy gas, the gas station doesn't get to charge me more for going to work than for going to Disneyland. The electric company doesn't get to charge me more for powering a lawnmower than for powering a television. When I buy something from the guy across town, the gas station doesn't get to step in and charge him too just because I used gas from that station to get there, and my power company doesn't get to charge Blizzard Entertainment because I play games on Blizzards servers.
Where I live, there also isn't a choice for anything other than Comcast. I live in Utah, and Comcast has made it illegal for even a group of my neighbors to compete with them here.
I haven't seen the FCC's proposals, so the implementation may be wrong, but as an idea, network neutrality is what the internet was built on, and is a good thing.

PS, I work for a software company, so a lack of network neutrality could directly impact our business. If we had to pay every ISP in the country bribes to be put on their list of approved content providers... Lets just say if you think Obama care was bad, CrapcastWare would kill us, and hundreds of other employers of 50-100 employees.

Jeff, yes, but combustion engines couldn't also be a plow, a pc, a laser printer, an atm with little change. Robotics/Automation is a slightly different change than moving to looms. You aren't the buggy driver this time, you are the horse.
ANYTHING that can be done following algorithmic process can be automated now, its just a matter of how fast we learn the algorithm, but even that is being done by computer more and more.
New jobs can be created by the destruction of the old, but when it is faster to build a machine or write a script to fill the new job than to train a person, why train a person? You can easily buy new machines and copy all the skill of one to any/all others, instantly building a skilled workforce.
I work in software. Every time I run into some clerical task that might have gone to another person, I write a tool to do it instead. Instead of having human help run through a process across multiple platforms, I write scripts and feed those to automation tools. This is increased productivity. Twenty years ago it would have taken 20 people or more to do the same work I do, and I'm not particularly special in this. And as long as I can create tools, no one will be hired to work under me. I get promoted, and no one is hired to fill my old position, I represent the vertical stack of every position I had held before my current one. The team I work on has been whittled down by attrition, from about 20 people to six. We turn out the same amount of work, we are just more productive per person. Other projects are started, but with the same expectations of output as our team, meaning overall fewer people are hired as time goes on. Ironically, I've replaced the majority of a team dedicated to automation testing by writing tools to better parse natural language descriptions of processes. I've also made my job easier to do by documenting my tools, so when I leave, a new person can fill my role without a whole lot of training, so my replacement will be paid less to do the same work I do. There are a lot of jobs that aren't that hard, even in skilled work, to replace with automation once are motivated to do so.

The freedom of speech promised by the first amendment has never meant free to say what ever you want in public. The same year the bill of rights was signed, so was the Alien and Sedition acts. People were arrested for saying in publication such things as:
the Adams administration a "continual tempest of malignant passions" and the President a "repulsive pedant, a gross hypocrite and an unprincipled oppressor"
"[the administration is] ridiculous pomp, foolish adulation, and selfish avarice."

I cant remember, but I think the current judgment pertaining to the limitation of free speech is that what is said presents a clear and present danger. I think Kill the cops and calling out for one specific cop could be seen as reason to at least bring him in for questioning according to this guideline. Attempting to kill the cops, or anyone, can probably be expected to be met any force necessary to nullify the threat. Since a tackle wouldn't have done ----, I can see why they opened fire.

I'm just as anti abuse-of-police-power as the next guy, but this particular example doesn't exactly strengthen the argument you are trying to make. This is too close to the middle, it would be like the other side saying a dog barking and baring its teeth justifies its being shot.

I believe it would be possible, and remain yourself, but it wouldn't be the quick upload process, but a gradual transition in substrate over time.
(maybe this discussion will help that make sense to you:
reviewthefuture.com They cover most of your "its just two beings" arguments too, jump forward to about 25 minutes to get the discussion about gradual replacement. Warning to the Nulli types, the hosts are technotopians like me).
As you gradually replace parts of your brain, at some point more of your consciousness is generated through the digital substrate than the biostrate, unless consciousness turns out to be solely analog. Or who knows, maybe souls are necessary. If I were already reaching the end of my life, I'd be willing to give it a shot without knowing for sure.

As a linguistics nerd (Linguistics is my minor, focusing on the structure of language because I like writing parsers for automation), I have to shrug my shoulders and say "So?" Unlike French or German, English does not have a governing body that dictates the official language standards. We do have what is though of as Standard English and vernacular Englishes do not fall within that standard, but people still understand it. English standards are only enforced by social pressure, acceptance by the highest tiers of society, the most educated and the most powerful. But how many of you know the four cases of third person masculine pronouns? Not many I'd bet, since that practice has died off. How about when to use thou and you? No? Also a dead practice of English. English changes, has been for the past 1300+ years, and will continue to do so. "Them," "their," "that?" Not even English, those words beginning with eth (eth (ð) is the voiced alveolar-dental fricative we associate with 'th,' rather than the voiceless version, which is represented as theta (θ)) came from Old Norse, and "polluted" the "proper English" in the south of England, but did they ruin the language? "Knight," "enough," "what" used to be pronounced exactly as they are spelled, but country bumpkins and vernacular users simplified the pronunciations. Innovation in the language comes from the outcasts. Standard English has always represented the Powerful, Educated and Wealthy, and Non-Standard English has always represented the solidarity of a class or region of people not accepted by the elite. All the responses that can be paraphrased as "You can't get a job with Ebonics," illustrate this. The top tiers of society has always had an interest in controlling the language, but if they had been successful we'd probably all be speaking French (or hell, even Latin).
As to the protests, I see them as being about the same thing as they are always about. Someone doesn't feel like they are getting their fair shake, so every reason is a reason to to their cause. These aren't illiterate kids, they are getting marked down on their dissertation proposals in graduate school (IE more educated than half of us). I think race has become a sensitive issue again because so many in power refuse to acknowledge the real structural differences in opportunity that remain. Instead, it is ignored, and in reaction the aggrieved overstate their side, leading to a loss of legitimacy for their cause and more ignoring by those not affected. It's not what is being protested that indicates the problem, it's that there is a perceived need to protest that indicates there is a problem. The upside is that the participants still believe that someone will listen when they protest peacefully.

Drudge Retort

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2015 World Readable